I fought it off as long as I could. Honestly, I did.

Although I’ve been hearing about “Avatar” seemingly since the day I learned to eat solid food, I really had no desire to watch the movie about blue people on a distant moon named after an online radio service (Pandora).

A movie about avatars? Seriously? Aren’t they the people on those “Sims” virtual life computer games? No thanks. I’d never even played a virtual reality game, much less had the desire to see a movie based on them.

But then the buzz really started to come in. Not only was this movie the most expensive of all time, it might actually be “ good? Critical and viewer reviews were surprisingly positive, much better than the ”Waterworld“ (the infamous 1995 Kevin Costner movie that cost a fortune to make only to be universally panned by critics and ignored by audiences) reception I expected.

Still, I felt like I “had” to see it, just because. I didn’t really “want” to see it, and held off a couple more weeks, reviewing some of the other likely Oscar contenders instead.

As the box office numbers for “Avatar” started to grow, it became clear this monster would not be slayed. It also became clear this film would compete with director James Cameron’s other cinematic behemoth movie, “Titanic,” in both Academy Awards won (“Titanic” won 11, while “Avatar” finds out how many nominations it received Feb. 2) and money made (“Avatar” has made $430 million, compared to more than $600 million for “Titanic”).

A Golden Globe win for best drama sealed the deal. I had to watch this movie. I just did.

So this week I became the last person on this planet to watch the movie, or so it seemed.

This just in — it was worth the wait.

The 3D version of this movie is a remarkable experience. And I do mean “experience.”

It almost doesn’t seem appropriate to put “Avatar” up against the likes of perfectly fine (even excellent) “normal” movies like “Up in the Air” or “The Hurt Locker.” Not so much because “Avatar” is so much better of a movie, but just that it really is unlike anything we’ve seen before.

The 3D effects and computer-generated special effects are on a whole other level than what we’ve seen before. Not necessarily surprising, given the film’s gawdy $237 million budget.

Without a passable story, however, “Avatar” would only be technological fluff. Fortunately, the plot is good enough to not make sitting through nearly three hours seem that long.

At the most basic level, the forbidden love aspect of “Avatar” is part “Dances with Wolves,” part “Pocahontas.” By taking one of the “sky people” (humans) and pairing an avatar version of himself with a female alien on Pandora, the movie also tests preconceived notions of race, nationality and humans’ relationship with the environment. If you buy into the movie’s sentiments, you might find yourself upset with humans in general, Americans in particular. If you despise movies suggesting such things, you probably won’t be so receptive to “Avatar.”

Still, the visuals here must be seen to be appreciated. And I don’t know that 2D would do it justice. I’ve never been a “you gotta see this in 3D” guy, but you gotta see this one in 3D. Having seen it in 3D, I feel like viewers seeing it in 2D would be cheating themselves, just as those watching TV in standard definition do when high definition is available. Sure, there’s been 3D films before, but “Avatar” sets a new standard for the technology, one which will continue pushing technological boundaries because of what “Avatar” has proven possible.

There’s no question in my mind that Cameron and “Avatar” will be richly rewarded on March 7, 2010 with armfuls of Academy Awards. Get the forklift ready, James — You’re going to need one for all the hardware you take home that night.

As much as I didn’t want to see “Avatar,” I’m glad I did because — and there’s really no way to say this without sounding overly dramatic, so I won’t try — a new day has dawned in Hollywood.

To borrow from the “I see you” catch phrase from the movie, you don’t see “Avatar.” You experience it.

Now.

Joel Sensenig is news editor of the Review Times.